On 2015-05-31 10:00:42, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Sonntag, den 31.05.2015, 00:20 +0200 schrieb Iustin Pop: > > Not sure I'm convinced. In case of pandoc and hlint, the debian packages > > for the binary match the cabal package name, so they could be argued > > either way. > > > > In case of shake, looking at the contents of libghc-shake-data, it seems > > we "stole" /usr/share/shake from the actual shake package (Testing > > engine for the Lua language version). So we already have a problem with > > this… > > > > The debian policy (section 8.2) also recommends to use "package-name" as > > a subdirectory of /usr/share. So: > > > > > If we have packages with a generic cabal name that put stuff there then > > > we need to extend haskell-devscript to allow us to change that flat. > > > Patch welcome :-) > > > > I'd rather prefer that we change the default to be either the source > > package name or one of the binary package names. The code shouldn't care > > about what the name of this directory is, but it seems it would be safer > > to use a non-conflicting one, always. > > fair point. There is probably not a solution that is ideal everytime. > E.g. if the package is libghc-foo-data, then we might still want foo if > it is _used_ by a package called foo. So it needs to be properly > configurable, and the question is what the default should be. I would suggest that the default is the source package name, since that seems safe to me. > I’ll leave it to whoever actually implements this. Fair point :)) thanks, iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature